o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision): The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, o3 emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

OpenAI

Reasoning: 9
Coding: 4
Multimodal: 3
Long Context: 5
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.004
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 211.342tokens/sec

Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `o3` vs `Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) debate, o3 scores 90 against Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)'s 60. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

o3300ms

Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)300ms

Tokens per Second

o3211.342

Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)35.236

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)

Power is only one part of the equation. This o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, o3 would cost $0.004, whereas Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) would cost $0.001. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) Battle for You?

Choose o3 if...

Your top priority is raw performance and capability.

You are working in a technical or scientific field requiring the highest accuracy.

Cost is a secondary concern to power in your o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) decision.

Choose Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) if...

You need a highly responsive model for user-facing applications.

Your budget is a primary consideration in the o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) choice.

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the o3 vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/